Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Are CA done with true historical titles?

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

Look, I *love* historical accuracy like nothing else. But if OP honestly, truly believes that SEGA buying CA is to blame for the games not being "true historical titles" anymore, then they haven't played much of the series. Activision published Shogun 1 with its supersoldier kensai and radically inaccurate campaign map, Medieval 1 with its incredibly poor & cliched understanding of Medieval warfare, and Rome 1 with its infamous array of outright fantasy units.

The Total War series has, as a general trend, gotten more historically accurate as it has gone on. Shogun 2, Rome 2, Attila, and especially Thrones of Britannia represent a surge of authenticity in the series. I've been particularly impressed in the places they've gone against pop culture perceptions in order to portray newer historical discoveries - ie widespread Germanic pike use in Attila or shield-bearing berserkers in ToB.

Three Kingdoms obviously has people worried because of the Romance mode, but we honestly haven't seen enough of the game as a whole, or the Classic Mode in particular, to make any sweeping judgements about it being a "fantasy total war". I'm 100% okay with it being a historical game that has a fantasy mode included with it, and I don't think that necessarily says anything about the direction of the series.

I'm more concerned if the one report we have about naval battles being removed turns out to be true.

You can go on about previous historical titles lacking authenticity all you want, but it all stems from a lack of knowledge or the lack of will to make things accurate.

Here we not only see them deliberately making things fanatstical, but putting loads of effort into fantastical elements that isn’t even in the romance. In which part of the goddamn book did anyone fire an exploding magic misslie or does an earthquake attack? Its the intent that counts. There’s no way I could defend this as historical, what is shown has no intention of preserving any suspension of disbelief like the original book did.

This game is created as a pure fantasy game first and foremost, an utter travesty for it is to masquerade it as a historical or even a romance title.

Is it indicative of a future trend? Probably not, they just want to make more fantasy dollar and this ‘historical’ setting gave them all excuse they could find to make it a fantasical as possible.

CA made 2 games (total war Warhammer series) and this Total War Three Kingdoms... Romance of the Three Kingdoms is understandable as a Historical-Fantasy Hybrid, because that is how the novels are written... they are classed as Historical FICTION.

If this was Total War: Rise of Chenghis Khan... they would have made it historical as they did Thrones of Brittania, Attila, Rome, Medieval, Empire, Shogun...

"I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin

All historical titles lack some level of historicity, but that's more a limitation of Total War as a game concept than historical authenticity.

Can you imagine Fall of the Samurai....without naval battles? Because that's pretty much the real Boshin War. Sure it's all fanciful with every conceivable clan using ironclads, but... it's fun.

I'm with Daelin, 100%. I'm perfectly happy with the devs bending or embellishing history if it makes for improved gameplay, a fun unit or an interesting game mechanic. I like my history, but I don't get hung up on or nitpick minor details, just because of historical inaccuracies or whatever.

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

No, I personally don't believe they've abandoned anything. A new perspective, certainly, but I think they are flexing their wings as they expand into new areas and concepts of play. I'm all for that, even if some of the things are not my 'personal cup-of-tea'.

"The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

No, I personally don't believe they've abandoned anything. A new perspective, certainly, but I think they are flexing their wings as they expand into new areas and concepts of play. I'm all for that, even if some of the things are not my 'personal cup-of-tea'.

I think it's fairly difficult to deny the need for innovation and change in the series. These series has been around an exceptionally long time and the hardcore fanbase puts thousands of hours into each title. They can't risk stagnation in game design.

Just as you said, the change might not always what one might personally enjoy.

"As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

There'll be a romance\fantasy mode and a classical\historical mode.

From what i've seen, the game looks very good. My favourite part is how the ambush of Sun Ren came to be (all the little factors) as well as how armies are built (Multiple generals in an army was LOOOOOONG overdue).

Also as people mentioned: CA needs to prevent stagnation and this title, by the little we've seen, does that so far.

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

There'll be a romance\fantasy mode and a classical\historical mode.

From what i've seen, the game looks very good. My favourite part is how the ambush of Sun Ren came to be (all the little factors) as well as how armies are built (Multiple generals in an army was LOOOOOONG overdue).

Also as people mentioned: CA needs to prevent stagnation and this title, by the little we've seen, does that so far.

I'm actually surprised they didn't do the multiple generals thing in Warhammer.

"As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~

We have seen with the choice to build a fantasy total war, and the obvious fantasy elements in Three Kingdoms a move away from true historical games for their main titles. Of course this could be a tempory deviation, but I do worry that including some kind of shallow, fantasy element might hint to a long term trend. As soon as I heard that SEGA had taken over from Activision as the publisher in the mid 2000’s my immediate thought was Total War is going to be stripped down, a shallow game for the masses. Think all the mass platform games SEGA published in the 90’s. Is this the fruition of my fears? Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhammer (unexpectedly as a historical buff) and it was a refreshing change from the historical formula. But I hope they don’t abandon accurately depicted historical titles in place of fictional games that appeal mainly to a younger audience.

There'll be a romance\fantasy mode and a classical\historical mode.

From what i've seen, the game looks very good. My favourite part is how the ambush of Sun Ren came to be (all the little factors) as well as how armies are built (Multiple generals in an army was LOOOOOONG overdue).

Also as people mentioned: CA needs to prevent stagnation and this title, by the little we've seen, does that so far.

Yep, there are some *great* decisions being made to change thing up. The character focus & spy mechanic, the multiple generals per army, the recruiting via retinue, the ability to escape from an ambush - all look like fantastic moves. They've also hinted that city & province management has been tweaked, but no news on that yet. The little tease they gave makes it sound like it might take some cues from ToB, which would be cool.

The only con I'm seeing so far is the lack of naval battles, which I hope they address. That's not an improvement on the formula, that's just...dropping part of it.

By true historical I mean without ‘supernatural’ or fantastical elements. Of course non of the TW games are historically accurate.

My feeling is one if the next total wars will be set in the future

That all depends on how you define "fantastical elements" because it's easy to make the argument that Shogun 1 and Rome 1 contained those with their blatantly fictional elements added to the setting "because it's cool." At least with 3K, we'll have the option to turn off its fictional elements if we want.

I personally doubt we'll see futuristic / sci-fi Total War, because their style of game requires large unit combat to work. The most recent conflict that could really handle is WW1, and once you get more modern / futuristic than that you need a more squad-based combat system like Men of War, Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Halo Wars, etc. We know CA can do that because they recently made Halo Wars 2, but I doubt they'll just jump the Total War franchise off the rails to do it. It'd be more likely as a separate series, but the last time they tried that (Stormrise) it was a disastrous flop that basically killed their Australian studio.

What's more likely to me is that they'll start up their own fantasy IP to continue a fantasy branch of games once Warhammer is done. That seems like a better overall solution for the studio than doing another licensed game, though that's also a possibility. Of course, they *could* make an "after the end" type of future ala Fallout or Dune, where societies have regressed so we have a weird mix of old-fashioned combat and sci-fi tech.

Ca has multiple teams of which one is focused on warhammer and the other one on three kingdoms. They also have the saga team a new content team etc etc. Off course they are not finished with historical title. It’s their bread and butter. For Sure they will experiment which is fine by me. None of the total war titles were 100% historical accurate. It’s a game and not a simulator. Next to that how historical accurate a total war game needs to be depends per person. I for one don’t like screaming women or head hurlers as a unit in a historical title but do like the duels in three kingdom. Matter of taste.

Ca has multiple teams of which one is focused on warhammer and the other one on three kingdoms. They also have the saga team a new content team etc etc. Off course they are not finished with historical title. It’s their bread and butter. For Sure they will experiment which is fine by me. None of the total war titles were 100% historical accurate. It’s a game and not a simulator. Next to that how historical accurate a total war game needs to be depends per person. I for one don’t like screaming women or head hurlers as a unit in a historical title but do like the duels in three kingdom. Matter of taste.

"Multiple teams".

"As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~

Ca has multiple teams of which one is focused on warhammer and the other one on three kingdoms. They also have the saga team a new content team etc etc. Off course they are not finished with historical title. It’s their bread and butter. For Sure they will experiment which is fine by me. None of the total war titles were 100% historical accurate. It’s a game and not a simulator. Next to that how historical accurate a total war game needs to be depends per person. I for one don’t like screaming women or head hurlers as a unit in a historical title but do like the duels in three kingdom. Matter of taste.

"Multiple teams".

They do. It's how lots of game dev works, especially for a large studio like CA. Doesn't matter how much some fans try to claim that there aren't just because delays happen with some of the teams.

CA actually has more teams than their blog posts suggest, because the blogs only cover the Total War teams. They also have at least 2 other teams I'm aware of that work on unrelated console games.

Ca has multiple teams of which one is focused on warhammer and the other one on three kingdoms. They also have the saga team a new content team etc etc. Off course they are not finished with historical title. It’s their bread and butter. For Sure they will experiment which is fine by me. None of the total war titles were 100% historical accurate. It’s a game and not a simulator. Next to that how historical accurate a total war game needs to be depends per person. I for one don’t like screaming women or head hurlers as a unit in a historical title but do like the duels in three kingdom. Matter of taste.

The problem I have is this: Did they pick this setting because of the Romance nonsense, or because of its historical value?

I think we all know the answer to that, and that is also why I can not see this as a historical game.

Ca has multiple teams of which one is focused on warhammer and the other one on three kingdoms. They also have the saga team a new content team etc etc. Off course they are not finished with historical title. It’s their bread and butter. For Sure they will experiment which is fine by me. None of the total war titles were 100% historical accurate. It’s a game and not a simulator. Next to that how historical accurate a total war game needs to be depends per person. I for one don’t like screaming women or head hurlers as a unit in a historical title but do like the duels in three kingdom. Matter of taste.

The problem I have is this: Did they pick this setting because of the Romance nonsense, or because of its historical value?

I think we all know the answer to that, and that is also why I can not see this as a historical game.

Or maybe because it's one of the most convenient scenarios for a TW title, huh?

Jimmy44: the fact that they will include a "fantasy mode" answers your question. If it is their next big historical title, why include a fantasy mode? For whatever reason they have decided that fantasy makes them more money than the historical titles, and since it is a business to make money I can't knock them for that. Britannia has changed my mind about their direction though - looks very promising for "history" nerds like me. When I get Britannia I may have faith in them again.

To all those who love fantasy - that's fine, I respect your gaming desires, but at the same time they need to respect gamers like me who don't like overt fantasy. Yes, every game is not perfect - its a game after all - but what matters is the author's "intent". The previous historical titles were obviously all about trying to recreate a historical era and still make it fun. Argueing endlessly about how the old historical titles had fantasy elements is not helping anyone imo.

Its a big world and every one has different opinions. That's what a forum is for.

The problem I have is this: Did they pick this setting because of the Romance nonsense, or because of its historical value?

I think we all know the answer to that, and that is also why I can not see this as a historical game.

Or maybe because it's one of the most convenient scenarios for a TW title, huh?

A most convenient setting to build something out of the warhammer foundation while still calling it ‘historical’.It even inherits the annoying, high frequency fidgiting that most warhammer unit has.

They have shown nothing but complete disinterests towards historical mechanics and battle which made the time period unique and interesting.Everything shown got to be related to duels or magical abilities.

I used to hold this delusion that both modes would get enough attention to stand on its own, this instantly vanished when its shown that innovations and features unique to historical titles is ripped out and replaced with generic magical spell.If all the attention and resources is deliberately put on fantastical nonesense then its not a historical title, period.

The problem I have is this: Did they pick this setting because of the Romance nonsense, or because of its historical value?

I think we all know the answer to that, and that is also why I can not see this as a historical game.

Or maybe because it's one of the most convenient scenarios for a TW title, huh?

A most convenient setting to build something out of the warhammer foundation while still calling it ‘historical’.It even inherits the annoying, high frequency fidgiting that most warhammer unit has.

They have shown nothing but complete disinterests towards historical mechanics and battle which made the time period unique and interesting.Everything shown got to be related to duels or magical abilities.

I used to hold this delusion that both modes would get enough attention to stand on its own, this instantly vanished when its shown that innovations and features unique to historical titles is ripped out and replaced with generic magical spell.If all the attention and resources is deliberately put on fantastical nonesense then its not a historical title, period.

3K is shaping up to be Warhammer lite when it's all about characters characters characters and their magical abilities.

$5 says the next reveal will be another character, and the next reveal, and the next reveal, etc.